He's taking a sentence completely out of context and making of it a non-truth. It certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and pot-stirring. And I think he knows better. So, he really should put his hair in the pot, heat, stir, and serve. What you'll get is a bowl full of nonsense. See Mary's comment above.

No one ever denied the existence of the Magisterium. It's just that it doesn't have a physical address and all that goes along with that. C'mon, now!

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Such a contention is clearly dodgy. Perhaps a 'red herring' to stray off the earlier point?

What is the "that" that you're referring to? That Fr. A. would take something out of context and spin it? Or that there is, in fact, a Magisterium that exists beyond the confines of a single physical space, contrary to the impression he and one or two others would like to give?

He's taking a sentence completely out of context and making of it a non-truth. It certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and pot-stirring. And I think he knows better. So, he really should put his hair in the pot, heat, stir, and serve. What you'll get is a bowl full of nonsense. See Mary's comment above.

No one ever denied the existence of the Magisterium. It's just that it doesn't have a physical address and all that goes along with that. C'mon, now!

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Such a contention is clearly dodgy. Perhaps a 'red herring' to stray off the earlier point?

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

Yes, the Pope regulates RC teachings. He is infallible when he chooses to speak ex cathedra, correct? Therefore, he has the ultimate veto-power over RC doctrine.

He is at the head of the magisterium, and has 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction' over all RCs. To have this claim, but then say he does not have regulatory power is a failure either of logic or one's choice in understanding the term 'regulate.' He regulates in the sense that he has supreme authority over all the RCC.

Mary, let me ask you this as a matter of clarification: can a RC deny the accuracy and truthfulness of a proclamation of the Pope and still be considered a RC in good standing?

You can't have it both ways: either the Pope has 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction' or he does not. While he may choose to not exercise it or to follow certain procedures (i.e. protocols, canon law, etc.) he does have the final say. This is at the heart of 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction'. Procedures and protocols are not nuances because they are subject to alteration, whereas the claims of Petrine supremacy are ontological: 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction' gives the Pope the ability to amend these processes, since they are established under his authority.

What is the "that" that you're referring to? That Fr. A. would take something out of context and spin it? Or that there is, in fact, a Magisterium that exists beyond the confines of a single physical space, contrary to the impression he and one or two others would like to give?

He's taking a sentence completely out of context and making of it a non-truth. It certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and pot-stirring. And I think he knows better. So, he really should put his hair in the pot, heat, stir, and serve. What you'll get is a bowl full of nonsense. See Mary's comment above.

No one ever denied the existence of the Magisterium. It's just that it doesn't have a physical address and all that goes along with that. C'mon, now!

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Such a contention is clearly dodgy. Perhaps a 'red herring' to stray off the earlier point?

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

A beautiful statement, and something Orthodox Church agrees with in terms of the equality of all bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome.

+++

"The “Peter Syndrome” is the automatic (and unjustified) application of anything about Peter to the bishop of Rome exclusively." (Fr. Cleenwerke, His Broken Body,p. 78).

"Cyprian, along with his synod of North African bishops, left no room for doubt: 'For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another' (Acts of the Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics). -Fr. Laurent Cleenewerke, His Broken Body

As Fr. John Meyendorff affirms"...a very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the 'See of Peter' being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter.' (On the Unity of the Catholic Church)

"Origen tells us that it was the standard claim of all bishops to have received the power of the keys: Consider how great power the rock has upon which the church is built by Christ, and how great power every one has who says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”… But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Savior, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter...” But if he is tightly bound with the cords of his sins, to no purpose does he bind and loose." It seems that Origen had traveled extensively by the time he wrote his Second Commentary on Matthew. As a result, we must assume that he accurately reported what he heard: bishops were quoting Matthew 16 to establish the prerogatives of their office.

"Chrysostom also calls Ignatius of Antioch successor of Peter. There is no doubt that his reference to “Peter and his successors” applies to the bishops everywhere, not to the bishops of Rome exclusively. In fact, there is a real possibility that Chrysostom’s perception of Peter’s role stems from his view of the episcopate (not the other way around)." -Fr. Laurent Cleerenwerke, His Broken Body, p. 84.

When the statement says, "the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all," we would state this is the ministry of all bishops, rather than it being particular to the Bishop of Rome exclusively.

Let's look at it this way: within an eparchy/diocese, the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop is exclusive. No other bishop has jurisdiction, except in the case of Rome, where the Church of Rome has decided that its bishop has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in all dioceses. This is the ultimate divide between Rome and the other Churches: we would say that if the Church of Rome would not attempt to exercise immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in all dioceses outside its own territory, then we could probably enter into a more constructive dialog about the theological differences between our churches, since there would be a restoration of the original mechanism by which dogma and disciplinary canons were developed.

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

When the statement says, "the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all," we would state this is the ministry of all bishops, rather than it being particular to the Bishop of Rome exclusively.

Let's look at it this way: within an eparchy/diocese, the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop is exclusive. No other bishop has jurisdiction, except in the case of Rome, where the Church of Rome has decided that its bishop has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in all dioceses. This is the ultimate divide between Rome and the other Churches: we would say that if the Church of Rome would not attempt to exercise immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in all dioceses outside its own territory, then we could probably enter into a more constructive dialog about the theological differences between our churches, since there would be a restoration of the original mechanism by which dogma and disciplinary canons were developed.

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

When the statement says, "the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all," we would state this is the ministry of all bishops, rather than it being particular to the Bishop of Rome exclusively.

Let's look at it this way: within an eparchy/diocese, the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop is exclusive. No other bishop has jurisdiction, except in the case of Rome, where the Church of Rome has decided that its bishop has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in all dioceses. This is the ultimate divide between Rome and the other Churches: we would say that if the Church of Rome would not attempt to exercise immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in all dioceses outside its own territory, then we could probably enter into a more constructive dialog about the theological differences between our churches, since there would be a restoration of the original mechanism by which dogma and disciplinary canons were developed.

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

What is the "that" that you're referring to? That Fr. A. would take something out of context and spin it? Or that there is, in fact, a Magisterium that exists beyond the confines of a single physical space, contrary to the impression he and one or two others would like to give?

I know I am an idiot and completely untutored in Roman Catholicism but I am not idiot enough to believe the Magisterium is confined to a single physical space. Do you know people who believe that?!! Room 112, Corridor D in the Vatican.

And no. The pope does not "regulate" the "expression" of RC doctrine and its teaching. The papacy is NOT a regulatory office.

Ho! ho! ho! No regulatory office?!

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

Yes, the Pope regulates RC teachings. He is infallible when he chooses to speak ex cathedra, correct? Therefore, he has the ultimate veto-power over RC doctrine.

No he does not have veto power. He has the power to AFFIRM the constant teaching of the Church. IF he speaks outside of the truth of revelation then he is not speaking infallibly and may be condemned.

Quote

He is at the head of the magisterium...

NO! The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO. If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction. That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary. You have to take immediate and universal jurisdiction AND the non-replacement statement together and deal with the paradox before you can even begin to imagine how the hierarchy is to work...or not, sometimes. Bishops can and do defy the pope. They defy God...Does that nullify God's ultimate authority? Some non-Christians would say so.

NO! The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO. If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction. That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary.

Yes, but only if the local biship is performing to the satisfaction of the Supreme Pontiff.

Mary, I did not say that defying the pope nullified the power of the pope, but it does nullify one's good standing with the RCC.

Furthermore, to 'affirm' or to 'not affirm' means that one can veto something by refusing to 'affirm' it. Same effect if you think about it.

As for the inversed circular logic about the pope not being infallible when he says he is speaking infallibly in pronouncing a teaching that is in fact not a teaching, then we have a real problem still even when he is speaking infallibly as to whether it is really infallibly or not.

Yes, the Pope regulates RC teachings. He is infallible when he chooses to speak ex cathedra, correct? Therefore, he has the ultimate veto-power over RC doctrine.

No he does not have veto power. He has the power to AFFIRM the constant teaching of the Church. IF he speaks outside of the truth of revelation then he is not speaking infallibly and may be condemned.

Quote

He is at the head of the magisterium...

NO! The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO. If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction. That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary. You have to take immediate and universal jurisdiction AND the non-replacement statement together and deal with the paradox before you can even begin to imagine how the hierarchy is to work...or not, sometimes. Bishops can and do defy the pope. They defy God...Does that nullify God's ultimate authority? Some non-Christians would say so.

NO! The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO. If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction. That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary.

Yes, but only if the local biship is performing to the satisfaction of the Supreme Pontiff.

And no. The pope does not "regulate" the "expression" of RC doctrine and its teaching. The papacy is NOT a regulatory office.

Ho! ho! ho! No regulatory office?!

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

Thats the problem. It is equality, but some..or one is MORE equal than others.

PP

It is astonishing to me, knowing the radical hierarchy of heaven, as taught by the holy fathers, of which the earthly hierarchy is a part, can never really be seen as a hierarchy of love.

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that the Pope's authority as head of the hierarchy of the (Roman) Church is equivalent to God's authority as head of the hierarchy of Heaven (and all Creation)? Because if so, then I'm not sure what's being disagreed about.

I don't think there's any disagreement that God's authority is absolute. We're all very happy that He is who He is and He wields that authority with absolute Love and Mercy, but that's His choice not ours--if He chose to damn us all to hell, that would be His prerogative, yes? And Fr. Giryus and Fr. Ambrose are arguing that the RC position is that the Pope has absolute power (although I'm not sure even they are making the sweeping claim your analogy does). And I think we can all agree that some Popes, unlike God, have not wielded their authority in a perfect spirit of Love and Mercy; and alternately, that some popes have shown a great deal of humility and love.

So Orthodox don't say that the Pope cannot act out of love and humility--but we are saying that he doesn't have to. And even if he doesn't, he's still pope and, in RC teaching and practice, wields an authority we don't believe is vested in any single individual.

(which I think somehow connects back to the original topic, like the essence and energies discussion, in that it simply demonstrates that RC and Orthodox teaching are different, regardless of which side's argument has more merit--though of course we end up going off-topic to debate the merits of the arguments)

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

Thats the problem. It is equality, but some..or one is MORE equal than others.

PP

It is astonishing to me, knowing the radical hierarchy of heaven, as taught by the holy fathers, of which the earthly hierarchy is a part, can never really be seen as a hierarchy of love.

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that the Pope's authority as head of the hierarchy of the (Roman) Church is equivalent to God's authority as head of the hierarchy of Heaven (and all Creation)? Because if so, then I'm not sure what's being disagreed about.

I don't think there's any disagreement that God's authority is absolute. We're all very happy that He is who He is and He wields that authority with absolute Love and Mercy, but that's His choice not ours--if He chose to damn us all to hell, that would be His prerogative, yes? And Fr. Giryus and Fr. Ambrose are arguing that the RC position is that the Pope has absolute power (although I'm not sure even they are making the sweeping claim your analogy does). And I think we can all agree that some Popes, unlike God, have not wielded their authority in a perfect spirit of Love and Mercy; and alternately, that some popes have shown a great deal of humility and love.

So Orthodox don't say that the Pope cannot act out of love and humility--but we are saying that he doesn't have to. And even if he doesn't, he's still pope and, in RC teaching and practice, wields an authority we don't believe is vested in any single individual.

(which I think somehow connects back to the original topic, like the essence and energies discussion, in that it simply demonstrates that RC and Orthodox teaching are different, regardless of which side's argument has more merit--though of course we end up going off-topic to debate the merits of the arguments)

Mary, my sense is that we Orthodox see the Magisterium of Rome as the 'lynch pin' of Roman Catholic teachings. There is a single point of reference, a single authority, for all teachings.

This has given the RCC the ability to conduct major changes in theology and practice in a very brief period of time, such as the Novus Ordo, which the Orthodox Church simply could never do even if a majority of the bishops resolved to do just that.Our diversification of authority, through the notion of common Apostolic succession to all bishops, prevents such changes.

For this reason, we tend to look at RCC tradition as a dictate of the Magisterium. All saints, all writings, all teachings come through this single entity...

I do understand what you are saying and appreciate the impact that vision would have on those outside of the Church.

But I must add this to what you have said. The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council,ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church.

The truth is that there is no one single locus of magisterial teaching. There is indeed one single locus for collecting the documents and teachings of the ages, coming from councils and synodal meetings and curial texts so that it becomes that much more efficient to devise a catechism or a code of canons...but to think that the contents of those tomes come from one single point on some triangle of a hierarchy is simply a delusion.

But the magisterial charge was given to the bishops and that is where the locus of power in the Church remains to this day. The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world...M.

Hi M.,

You seem to be saying here that the papal office was not responsible for Novus Ordo, but that rather bishop's delegates were. Is that what you are saying??

Monsignor Klaus Gamber, however, in Reform of the Roman Liturgy 2, attributes Novus Ordo to Pope Paul VI, despite protests at all levels of the RC church all around the world:

"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do." -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

I, for one and as a non-RC, would like to see the RCC return to its more ancient practices. If we have any hope for reunion, it would be through a more and more traditional RCC. If they were to progress all the way back to the era of the original schism, I think we could all find reason to overcome the chasm.